3 ms·

After reading too many blogs trying to substantiate their claims by quoting science out of context, I never consider the first paragraph as proof of anything. T

After reading too many blogs trying to substantiate their claims by quoting science out of context, I never consider the first paragraph as proof of anything. The second paragraph turned from promoting an idea to almost accusing others of bias or misconduct, in a way that almost mimicked a conspiracy theory. I can understand the complaints about inadequately tested models, because that happens. (And, as there are a lot of russian language posts in the blog, perhaps it is a cultural language style I am unfamiliar with.) But, if it wasn't for the username looking similar to the name on the paper, I would have written it off.

Dylan16807 13y ago
Still, I think pseudo-science would use a quote as a springboard into something nonsensical, it wouldn't just say "these guys didn't do their job properly", it would do something like accuse them of actual conspiracy, or say that the answer was obvious because [inane blather].
- jared314 13y ago
  "Nonsensical" and "inane blather" are relative to your personal knowledge and experience. Science and technology, to people outside of those fields, sounds like a string of nonsense jargon and technobabble. (That is one of the reasons why phys.org, university press departments, Congressman[1], and Fox News[2] can get things so very wrong.) My lack of a background in the detailed inner workings of Li-Ion batteries, or chemistry in general, prevents me from directly validating his statements. So, if it wasn't for the username looking similar to the first name on the paper, I would have written it off. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6378495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6378495
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    The point is that he didn't make any statement there. So you don't need any field knowledge to realize he didn't springboard into blather, because he didn't springboard into anything at all.

Dylan16807 13y ago

Still, I think pseudo-science would use a quote as a springboard into something nonsensical, it wouldn't just say "these guys didn't do their job properly", it would do something like accuse them of actual conspiracy, or say that the answer was obvious because [inane blather].

jared314 13y ago
"Nonsensical" and "inane blather" are relative to your personal knowledge and experience. Science and technology, to people outside of those fields, sounds like a string of nonsense jargon and technobabble. (That is one of the reasons why phys.org, university press departments, Congressman[1], and Fox News[2] can get things so very wrong.) My lack of a background in the detailed inner workings of Li-Ion batteries, or chemistry in general, prevents me from directly validating his statements. So, if it wasn't for the username looking similar to the first name on the paper, I would have written it off. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6378495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6378495
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  The point is that he didn't make any statement there. So you don't need any field knowledge to realize he didn't springboard into blather, because he didn't springboard into anything at all.